FBI: More People Killed with Fists & Hammers than Rifles & Shotguns

This whole political dogma that preaches, "It's for our safety" is total BS!

If these government criminals actually cared about our safety they would show it by coming down on the chemicals put into our food by the !0
Corporations that are responsible for 90% of the food products we buy!

I just thought I would bring that up to show how and agenda can supersede common sense for those intelligent enough to think about the hypocrisy
shoved down our throats on a daily basis by the Edwin Béarnaise globalist puppets......

The point, which some seem to miss, would be this:
If handguns are responsible for the overwhelming majority of firearms murders, why try to ban only certain type of rifle?

Do you have an answer?

Well my guess would be that those that tend to lean left of the podium feel that a semi auto rifle is probably more accurate at distance with greater
mag capacities than your standard semi auto pistol. That being said pistols in the right hands at close quarters can be deadly accurate. Therefore of
course, ban semi auto rifles. Sarcasm intended

a reply to: Phoenix
There is a slight problem with the FBI numbers.
these numbers include suicide...
While I'm sure the guns account for a pretty good chunk of suicides, (people who want to die for one reason or another) I'm fairly sure the number of
folks using their own fists and hammers is low.
So actual numbers on gun "homicide" are lower than presented.
(Edit)
Just to be clear to those hand and hammer grabbing scum out there.
If you infringe my right to hammers and hands, I do have a 3d printer and schematics for prosthetic hands.
I will have to get the DIY community to make me some hammer plans however.

edit on 29-5-2014 by g146541 because: The right to bear mammers shall not be infringed!

The point, which some seem to miss, would be this:
If handguns are responsible for the overwhelming majority of firearms murders, why try to ban only certain type of rifle?

I have an answer. Hysteria induced by the media (ultimately to sell advertising) and politicians eager to politicize any issue. What a lot of posters
in this thread are choosing to ignore is that irrational fear is promoted equally on both sides of this mostly fraudulent "debate." There is no
popular national support for any sort of serious restriction on gun ownership. Every time there is a mass shooting, we go through the exact same drill
and the only real outcome is a spike in gun sales.

originally posted by: g146541
a reply to: Phoenix
There is a slight problem with the FBI numbers.
these numbers include suicide...
While I'm sure the guns account for a pretty good chunk of suicides, (people who want to die for one reason or another) I'm fairly sure the number
of folks using their own fists and hammers is low.
So actual numbers on gun "homicide" are lower than presented.
(Edit)
Just to be clear to those hand and hammer grabbing scum out there.
If you infringe my right to hammers and hands, I do have a 3d printer and schematics for prosthetic hands.
I will have to get the DIY community to make me some hammer plans however.

You're wrong. Look at the title of the table. "Murder Victims by Weapon, 2008-2012"

Sharing the same logic most of those anti-gun zealots use, who needs fists or hammers anymore?

You don't need a hammer. If you need something fixed in you house, you should just call a repair man, he is able to operate a hammer safely, you are
not. The only people that need hammers these days are murderers and carpenters, and if you aren't a carpenter, you don't need a hammer. Just to be
safe we need to register hammers so that only license carpenters can purchase hammers. Non-carpenters in the possession of hammers means instantly
felony.

Nobody needs their fists anymore. We live in a safe society where fists are no longer needed, an facts are obviously showing that fists are incredibly
dangerous. People do need their hands, so amputation might be a bit extreme (might!) Instead I suggest implanting muscle monitors in everyone's
hands. If you flex your hand into anything close to a fist you are jolted with some 2 million volts to dissuade you from doing so in the future.

Also, people who draw fists on paper, or say the word "fist" in public, or those that utilize rubber fists in their sexual encounters will be thrown
into jail as well. Well, not the rubber fist people, they are a protected victim class and allowed use of their fists, natural, rubber, or otherwise.

The point, which some seem to miss, would be this:
If handguns are responsible for the overwhelming majority of firearms murders, why try to ban only certain type of rifle?

Do you have an answer?

Well my guess would be that those that tend to lean left of the podium feel that a semi auto rifle is probably more accurate at distance with greater
mag capacities than your standard semi auto pistol. That being said pistols in the right hands at close quarters can be deadly accurate. Therefore of
course, ban semi auto rifles. Sarcasm intended

Honestly I don't think they even put that much thought into it. They want to ban things because they look scary, or because a few bad people used
them. That is the total depth of their thought process, it's superficial as hell.

Until all the gun control supporters actually educate themselves about firearms (no chance in hell, why should someone be education about something
they talk so much about?) they are never going to realize gun control is based on nothing but IMAGE and IMAGE does not save lives, period.

Wow, you...didn't really get what I was saying were you? That's ok, Junior, I'll smarten you up.

What I meant here was a point that's not a point. I've heard people attempt to make a point of melee weapons vs. firearms that amount to just that:
mass shootings can and do happen, but mass stabbings, bludgeonings, beatings, etc. can but don't happen (that often). By the one, using one example
from the 1970s Khmer Rouge isn't something I would have been something I would consider a point breaker.

Don't ask me why mass murders are always more appealing to the public over just a single body, but people blow up mass murder like it was the worst
thing to happen since rock n' roll.

Wow, you...didn't really get what I was saying were you? That's ok, Junior, I'll smarten you up.

What I meant here was a point that's not a point. I've heard people attempt to make a point of melee weapons vs. firearms that amount to just that:
mass shootings can and do happen, but mass stabbings, bludgeonings, beatings, etc. can but don't happen (that often). By the one, using one example
from the 1970s Khmer Rouge isn't something I would have been something I would consider a point breaker.

Don't ask me why mass murders are always more appealing to the public over just a single body, but people blow up mass murder like it was the worst
thing to happen since rock n' roll.

Read carefully next time.

Maybe I misunderstood, as I have a hard time with points that aren't points, but It seemed like you were saying it makes sense to get rid of guns
because mass shootings happen, but mass stabbings and bashings don't?

I then questioned why that matters, people are still dying, asking if a death in a mass shooting is more important than a death in a single bashing
incident. I was asking for your personal opinion not what society thinks.

Then I commented that the previous poster provided evidence that you were wrong on your statement that mass bashings and stabbings don't happen, as
they do. I'll throw in right now that mass stabbings are actually quite common in China if we are calling mass shootings in America common.

That shows that lack of guns doesn't accomplish what you think it does. It doesn't keep people safe. People will just go out and stab/hack a bunch of
people instead of shooting them. But then there is no armed civillians to stop it, just like in China, or a school, or a "gun-free zone"

And now it's not that mass stabbings and bashings don't happen, it's just that they don't happen as frequently. Well, did you ever think that's
because people have guns? Take away the guns then you will see more mass stabbings and bashing, with the problem again being that there is no armed
civilians to stop it, and nobody can arm themselves for defense.

Guns are not creating this problem. Guns are a tool used by the problem. The problem being, people that want to kill other random people for really
messed up reasons. Lets get rid of those people, or help them, or something, instead of taking the masturbatory stance of banning guns.

That's not to say depriving a person of tools to do evil won't make it harder, it will, but that tool is also used by good, normal people trying to
defend themselves from that evil. Burning your house down will probably get rid of the rats, but you burnt your house down. Banning guns won't even
get rid of the rats, there still there, but now you don't have a house!

If someone had a brain tumor, would you suggest taking pain killers as the solution? Or getting rid of the tumor? It seems like this society is geared
for dealing with and addressing symptoms not causes, whether it be the medical industry , economic issues, social issues, or the political realm.
nobody wants to deal with causes, they want to deal with symptoms and tangent occurrences.

You left out handguns. Only the government should have firearms. Guns should be banned. I'm tired of the mafia, bloods, crips, gangster disciples,
folk nation, mass shooters who go off their meds, kids who accidentally shoot off their parents weapon, muggers, jealous lovers, black widows, drug
runners, terrorists, mexican mafia, lee harvey losers, chesters etcetera. A bunch of cowards. And so are the people who stand up for the rights of
cowards. I'm tired of hearing about a few regimes that used gun controll, saddam used to give people rifles as presents. Japan has no gun controll
problems, they let people carry weapons like police collapsible steel batons and knives, lots of people are tired of crime.
There is no excuse for arming criminals over and over again. The rights in the constitution are not without exception. You can't shout fireIin a
public theatre. You know why? A few people die. This is more than a few people. Only an imbecile would pass a law that said people could carry guns
but not carry knives.

Given rifles make up 2% of firearm involved murders you'd have to wonder why all the hoopla over so-called 'assault rifles.'

This is why:

The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault
weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on
these weapons.

So all you anti-civil rights folk relish proudly in your ignorance. It couldn't be more obvious you're simply useful idiots to the control lobby.
They write about your stupidity as a tactic to exploit!

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.